Introduction: Hume on Testimony and Miracles

The Enlightenment (roughly 1700-1800) saw the rise of reason, liberal democracy, and science, with a decline in religion and monarchy.
A key ideal of the Enlightenment is intellectual autonomy.
We'll examine this through the works of David Hume and Thomas Reid, prominent figures of the Scottish Enlightenment.

Lived and worked in Edinburgh, Scotland.
Developed a naturalistic philosophical system:
- Explanations do not appeal to God or the supernatural.
- Addressed various areas of philosophy without invoking supernatural elements.
Known for his critiques of religion, though expressed cautiously due to the social context of 18th-century Scotland.

Featured in his book An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748).
Conclusion: One should never believe that a miracle has occurred based solely on testimony.

In philosophy, testimony refers to believing something based on someone else's assertion, whether verbal or written.
A large portion of our beliefs are based on testimony.

Hume emphasizes the importance of testimony as a source of beliefs:
- "There's no species of reasoning more common, more useful, and even necessary to human life than that which is derived from the testimony of men."
- Example: Beliefs about a city you've never visited are based on testimony from people who have been there, news reports, or Wikipedia.

To believe testimony, there must be evidence that the person testifying is likely to be right (reliable).
Rooted in evidentialism: "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."
When evaluating testimony, especially about unusual events, the degree of belief should align with the evidence.
- Example:
  - Waiter says coffee machine broke - believable, likely to be true.
  - Waiter says aliens stole the coffee - less believable. More likely the waiter is wrong or mistaken.

Hume defines a miracle as a violation of the laws of nature, something that has never happened in the "common course of nature."
A miracle is an exception to an exceptionless regularity.
- Example: Someone rising from the dead is presented as a miracle, because it has never occurred before.

Hume says,
- "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."
The more unusual the event described in the testimony, the more skeptical one should be.
- Returning to the cafe example, it's more likely a waiter is wrong than that aliens stole the coffee.
When someone claims a miracle occurred (e.g., someone rose from the dead), consider:
- What's more likely: the person is wrong, or someone rose from the dead?
- Is the false testimony more miraculous then the supposed miracle?

Only trust testimony when there's evidence the testifier is likely to be right.
A miracle is an exception to a previously exceptionless regularity (very unlikely).
People are often wrong when they testify, either sincerely or intentionally.

Given these premises, one should never believe that a miracle has occurred based on testimony.
It's always more likely that the person testifying is wrong than that the miracle happened.
Analogy: Like the waiter claiming aliens stole the coffee, it's is more probable that the speaker provides false testimony than the event(miracle) actually occurred.